I consider myself fairly libertarian
>non-agression principle
>free trade
>no binding alliances
>free market
>limited government
But I just can't ever get behind open boarders, I feel like it undermines the entire thing.
What political ideology satisfies this contempt?
>>67466856
Throw out free trade and your a common sense conservative.
>>67466856
Read Hoppe.
Or look up paleoconservatism if you can stomach some protectionism over free trade.
>>67466856
Paleoconservatism
>>67466856
If you unconditionally support free trade then you are already anti-borders. You sound like a Libertarian/Minarchist, they don't necessarily advocate open borders per say, just inadvertently through globalist free trade like yourself.
>>67466856
slavery
What the fuck are you talking about? Libertarian ideas, as you said, are about non-agression principle, not about 'open borders'. 99.9% of illegal immigrants in western countries defy this principle, because they don't do what they're supposed to do here. Libertarianism says 'if you can come here and be productive to our society, come and do that. If you come here and don't keep your part of the deal, you'll get bitten by the HSSSS snake'.
>>67466856
A realist.
>>67467347
And, to elaborate, people who think that any immigrants are bad (even if they are productive and useful) are just as retarded as refugeeswelcome leftists.
>>67466928
I seriously do not understand a single positive arguement for free trade economics.
The only rational I can see for it is to limit government spending and therefore weaken countries. This weakens enviromental protection and further erodes workers rights and conditions.
>>67467585
As someone who generally supports free trade, it's because it lets us sell milk in your countries and make shitloads of money.
From a more neutral perspective, it's good for the same reason monopolies are bad. More competition, lowers prices that sort of thing. Downside is it has the potential of completely decimating local industries if they just can't compete with the international standard, which libertarians would claim is good in the long run since it gets rid of wasteful jobs and expenses and ensures only the companies that provide the best service for the best price survive.
>>67466856
Game-theory dictates that free trade cannot co-exist with the non-aggression principle. There will always be external actors attempting to undermine the free market so long as you don't hold the hegemony, as the US arguably has (until they cucked up in Syria) and Hitler certainly tried to do.
You either coerce trade benefits through protectionism like Trump wants to do, or you secure trade benefits through violence and intimidation of external actors like US has done for a very long time.
Open borders is fine if there is no basic income because the shittiest people cant afford to come here
Advent of cheap shit and travel undermines this now though so I just say I'm a nationalist libertarian and build wall
>>67467477
>people who think that any immigrants are bad (even if they are productive and useful) are just as retarded as refugeeswelcome leftists.
You wouldn't understand, being a slav. Your identity and culture is not at risk due to a flood of migrants working at low wages. You may think differently if 50% of the people you saw on the street were asian everyday and roads are clogged and house prices are far beyond the reach of the average citizen due to the fact that the infrastructure can't handle so many people.
White nations for white people.
>>67467812
free trade can't co-exist with an independent state period
>>67467938
Agreed.
>>67467585
Free trade makes a lot of sense for a country like America. We can produce highly sought after commodities and just buy the other stuff from cheaper sources.
Some of the problems I think people have with it is when US companies move out of the nation to evade taxes and exploit 3rd world 1st and 2nd stage economies.
I guess what i'm trying to say is there can be good and bad sides to it, depends on your perspective.
>>67468040
>We can produce highly sought after commodities and just buy the other stuff from cheaper sources.
Yeah that's certainly working out well for you.
>50 billion dollar trade deficit with mexico
>300 billion with Japan
>500 billion with China
>>67468169
OP here I guess I just parroted talking points without fully understand what it meant. There's a lot of good points here and I guess protectionism makes more sense.
I suppose I need to read more
>>67467893
Don't be a cuck, there's nothing wrong with, say, some Canadians or Brits with specialised technical knowledge coming over here to work in that field.
It's just that that idea never holds up against the pressure to import hordes of cheap unskilled curries etc
>>67466856
If you elect Trump you won't need boarders. You'll be able to pay the rent all by yourself.
>>67468243
That also plays a role in allowing even the working class to have a better quality of life than 99% of people throughout history.
I'm not arguing for either side because both have their pros and cons. I think we could certainly do with rethinking about some of trading policies and taking an objective look at it. But that's the problem, there isn't much objectivity, especially in the media. Our common burger won't read more into it either.
>>67467585
In essence, free trade is beneficial for all parties involved, but it has much more positive effect for the weaker trading partner involved. Protectionism is generally negative for both parties, but it hits less developed nations much harder.
Meanwhile, protectionism is what allowed the British Empire in the 19th century, and later the United States in the early 20th century to become so powerful relative to other nations, because it allowed them to maintain their comparative advantage.
>>67468405
Deleted my earlier post, and fixed some errors sorry bout that. But basically yes, protectionism is a perfectly reasonable policy when free trade is being practiced as a one sided deal.
>>67467585
The idea is to let the countries that are most efficient at making a product, make that product.
While other countries that are better at making other products or services, do that.
>>67467893
Are you fucking retarded? There are more mudshits and asians in Moscow alone than in whole Germany. Russia is the most mud-cucked country on the planet right now.
>>67466856
Open borders/relaxed immigration policy is fine without a massive entitlement gimmedat system.
>free markets
it's an abstract term that can't be achieved because of that
>>67467585
>I am so worthless as a human being, I can't compete with a Chinese peasant
>I literally need the government to subsidize my level of uselessness
>>67467732
> the international standard
There is no international standard though. There is no level playing field. How are our blue collar jobs meant to compete with factories that can pay people $1 a day and don't have to worry about safety/insurance laws etc? It's all a big scam propagated by global corporations and the politicians they support financially. Sure we can sell our top tier agricultural products to other markets and we get cheaper TVs but in the long run the cost is our nation and way of life, it's not worth it.
>>67470162
>How are our blue collar jobs meant to compete with factories that can pay people $1 a day and don't have to worry about safety/insurance laws etc?
Well they don't which is why Western manufacturing collapsed. But hey we've got a "service economy" now, whatever the fuck that means.
>>67470162
Then why don't we ban trade with countries who don't abide by industry standards and laws?
>>67470319
We're transitioning, apparently. But how are all the 50+ year old people meant to transition into this 'fast-paced', 'service-orientated', 'economy of the future'? It's 1984 level meme bullshit that's not going to work in the long run.
>>67470441
Well we should, that's a great idea. Problem is so many global corporations profit greatly from the misery and slavery of the third world and they're in bed with big Government. The world is fast becoming a global fascist Corporatocracy, shits hard to break out of.
>>67470441
>banning it outright
Just tax them heavily until they adapt
>>67470441
Because of political 'donations'.
The whole system has been corrupted, capitalism works when everyone has a job. You can't Outsource your middle/lower class and expect it to work. We're quickly headed towards a upper class and a pheasant class. Immigration just speeds up the process.
While everyone concerns themselves with social issues. Drives me Insane
